INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

7 of the assessee in the nature of rent and deducted TDS accordingly as per the provisions of section 1941 of the Act. The nature

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

7 of the assessee in the nature of rent and deducted TDS accordingly as per the provisions of section 1941 of the Act. The nature

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

TDS) are illegal having being passed beyond the time limit stipulated in proviso to section 200A(1) and assessee would not have benefited from delaying the process of filing the appeal. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order has been passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

TDS) are illegal having being passed beyond the time limit stipulated in proviso to section 200A(1) and assessee would not have benefited from delaying the process of filing the appeal. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order has been passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

TDS) are illegal having being passed beyond the time limit stipulated in proviso to section 200A(1) and assessee would not have benefited from delaying the process of filing the appeal. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order has been passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

TDS) are illegal having being passed beyond the time limit stipulated in proviso to section 200A(1) and assessee would not have benefited from delaying the process of filing the appeal. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order has been passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being

INDERJIT SINGH,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PHAGAWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

TDS belongs to the PFAS, where the gross is considered as per provisions of section 199 of the Act 61. 7

SHRI HARINDER PAL SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS. 3.1 During hearing, the assessee relied on the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pushkar Prabhat Chandra Jain vs. Union of India & Anr. (2019) 309 CTR (Bom) 218 relevant para is extracted as below: “7. Section

PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,KAPURTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

TDS, Jalandhar, that the assessee PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (PRTC), Kapurthala holding [TAN: JLDG01261B], has failed to collect the TCS as per provisions of section 206C(6A) and 206C(7

KASHMIR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. CPC TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

7. That adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 200A of the Act before 01/06/2015. The issue is whether such a levy could be effected in the course of intimation under section 200A. The answer is clearly in negative. No other provision enabling a demand

KASHMIR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. CPC TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

7. That adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 200A of the Act before 01/06/2015. The issue is whether such a levy could be effected in the course of intimation under section 200A. The answer is clearly in negative. No other provision enabling a demand

SPARROW SECURITY SERVICES ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS payment with bank, well within stipulated 'due date', however, there was one day delay in debiting amount from assessee's bank account which was apparently due to mistake of banker, no interest could have been levied under section 201(1A) on assessee; interest levied by revenue authorities was to be waived off” 3.5 The ld. AR further relied

KC SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST (REGD),NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER . TDS., JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

7. Thus, in the course of pressing for TDS statement and issuance of statement under section 200 A, an adjustment

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS) 7. The CIT(A) has while distinguishing the coordinate Bench decision has not been appreciated the facts of the case, in issuance of intimation under section

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS) 7. The CIT(A) has while distinguishing the coordinate Bench decision has not been appreciated the facts of the case, in issuance of intimation under section

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) , SRINAGAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS) 7. The CIT(A) has while distinguishing the coordinate Bench decision has not been appreciated the facts of the case, in issuance of intimation under section

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

7. We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record. We find that the petitioner's central challenge viz. of non-permissibility to levy fee under section 234E of the Act till section 200A of the Act was amended with effect from 01.06.2015. We have noticed the relevant statutory provisions. The picture that emerges

DHILLON AND SIMRAN LIVER FIBRO SCAN CENTRE,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS)-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

7 to 9 and Form 16A Page S.No.10) . Sir, in view of filing of TDS return, its acceptance by CPC TDS and generation of TDS certificate mentioning Nature of Payment 194C, the question of levying Late Fee taking deduction of TDS u/s 194J is uncalled for, wrong and illegal. It may be added here that in Form 26Q, there